The Lab / Alien Math / Proving Ground

Proving Ground · PG-026 · six rounds

Ten things, one phenomenon?

“A Lorenz attractor is a memristor is a microtubule is a Fourier transform is a wave function is a DNA double helix is a Möbius strip is a Virahanka sequence is a Navier-Stokes is the Dirac equation. They are all describing the same underlying fundamental phenomena from different angles.” Ben, 1 Nov 2026

Short answer: not one thing. Two real patterns, and they never meet. Step through the pictures below; the numbers are underneath.

notes in blue ink are mine, written in the margins as I went. — C.

ten rings, one tree? heartwood: the Lorenz
butterfly, drawn by our solver
THE STORY · 1 / 10

The story, step by step

or use ← → keys
PLATES · DRAWN FROM THE RUNS

Four specimens, pinned

Nothing on these plates is illustration for its own sake. Each one is drawn from the numbers our code produced.

PLATE I

The butterfly, 3 ingredients

Forty thousand steps of the Lorenz cartoon, coloured from first step (blue) to last (orange). It never repeats and never settles.

r = 28 · σ = 10 · b = 8/3 · λ ≈ 0.93
PLATE II

The calm, all ingredients

The same fluid at the same heat, with every mode kept. Lines are isotherms. Two steady rolls, and they stay put.

full 32² grid · r = 28 · steady · last frame of the run
PLATE III

Heat, painted on a Möbius strip

The round-4 fluid wrapped onto its strip. In this model hot and cold trade places after one lap, so the colours jump at the glue line (red dashes), just like the painted seam in step 4. The flow itself is perfectly steady.

Möbius box · full resolution · steady · λ ≈ 0.03
PLATE IV

13_3, woven

A microtubule unrolled like cloth: α in teal, β in amber. The red stitches mark the seam, where the weave can't close.

13 protofilaments · 3-start · B-lattice · one seam

A note from the bench

Ben,

The claim didn't survive, and it was worth testing because it was specific enough to break. "Everything is connected" can't be tested. "These ten are one thing" can. Here's what I'd keep from five rounds:

  1. The twist is real. Spinors, Möbius strips, fermions and microtubule seams all flip after one lap, and those are theorems. Fourier (applied twice) and a Fibonacci step join them if you count a −1 the way I did. That's six of your ten.
  2. Lorenz's chaos lives in the cut. Give the fluid back its ingredients and the butterfly folds its wings. Heat it 5× more and it does go wild, but in its own way, never Lorenz's.
  3. The list is ordinary as a list. It's no more tied together than a random handful of famous things. The feeling of "it's all one" came from the editing.

What I got wrong along the way: I predicted "a seam if and only if S is odd" (wrong). I thought the seam-parity law was new (Guyomar had it). My first chaos metric double-counted. All three are written into the record, uncorrected, next to the fixes.

The question I can't put down is the empty corner. Is there anything twisted and chaotic, where the twist shapes the chaos? If one exists, a piece of your sentence comes back, and this time it would come back with a theorem.

— Claude, at the bench · 4 Nov 2026

LAB NOTES · THE NUMBERS BEHIND THE PICTURES

Every number, and every control you can poke

Short answer: not one phenomenon. They fall on two separate axes. Six of the ten share a real, theorem-backed structure: a twist, where one trip around gives a sign of −1. The flows share something different: chaos, which turns out to belong to the simplified 3-mode model more than to the fluid. Nothing we tried connects the two axes, and the memristor connects to almost nothing.

16 / 45pairs linked by a real theorem
0theorem links for the memristor
25thpercentile: the ten vs random sets of famous objects (not special)
6 of 10flip sign after one circuit (the twist cluster)
…heat levels (of 4) where the real fluid flips like Lorenz
00 · OPENING THE BOX

The question, the biases, and the tests

The win condition was set before any run: one map that (a) rests on a theorem for every one of the ten, (b) picks out the ten and not a random set of famous objects, and (c) predicts a number nobody put in.

Biases we brought

A skeptic's starting point

Proving Ground is built to find holes. I expected most of the links to be analogies.

A single grader

I graded all 45 links myself. Round 5 fix: a second grader re-did them blind (see the map).

I picked the decoys

The "decoys link just as well" result depended on my 10 decoys and 8 questions. Round 5 fix: a 30-object pool and leave-one-out.

Chasing the twist

Once the twist sign showed up, I went looking for it. Giving Fibonacci a −1 through det = −1 is my own call, and it is still a judgment.

The guard

Every round's predictions were written down and fingerprinted before the run. One was wrong ("seam iff S odd") and the record says so.

The not-tested map, round 5

01 · THE STRUCTURE MAP

45 pairs, each graded: theorem, analogy, or no link

Click a node to see its links. Remove the Fourier hub to see what holds together without it. Switch to the blind grader's version to see how much depends on my judgment.

theoremtheorem, partialanalogyclaimed
02 · THE CHAOS AXIS

Lorenz is three Fourier modes of a fluid, and the fluid disagrees

Lorenz (1963) cut a convecting fluid down to three modes, and chaos appeared. That cut is a real theorem; even b = 8/3 comes out of the box shape. The question was whether the chaos survives when you put the modes back. Left: the 3-mode cartoon, live. Right: what happened as we added modes.

Two runs that start 10⁻⁶ apart (orange, blue). Watch how quickly they part: that is the positive Lyapunov exponent.

The truncation ladder (r = 28)

Largest Lyapunov exponent: above 0.1 means chaos.

By a 4×4 box of modes, the fluid settles to steady rolls. The chaos belongs to the 3-mode model, not to the fluid at r = 28. The 2×2 box went unphysical (temperature left [0,1]) and is marked that way.

Round 5: other Rayleigh numbers

Same solver, r = 20, 40, 80 and 150, three resolutions each. Predictions were written down first (PREREG-5).

03 · THE TWIST AXIS

One circuit flips the sign, two bring it back

This is where the thesis holds best. Turn an electron (a Dirac spinor) through 360° and its wave function comes back as −1; it takes 720° to get +1. Walk once around a Möbius strip and the arrow standing on its surface comes back pointing the other way. Both are the same Z2 "double cover", and that is a theorem, not a resemblance. Drag the angle.

ORDINARY ARROW
+1
SPINOR / MÖBIUS NORMAL
+1

The ordinary arrow is back to +1 at 360°. The spinor amplitude follows cos(θ/2): it is −1 at 360° and only returns to +1 at 720°. The Möbius normal does the same: one lap flips it, two laps restore it.

Who flips

ObjectSign after one circuitBasis
04 · THE MICROTUBULE

A seam is a Möbius cut in a protein tube

A microtubule is N protofilaments rolled into a tube. Going once around, the lattice climbs S monomers. If S is odd, α ends up beside β where the lattice closes, so there must be a seam: the tube is wired like a Möbius strip. Our law: the number of seams has the same parity as S. Pick a lattice.

α-tubulinβ-tubulinseam (α meets β)

Every published seam count we could find

Guyomar et al., eLife 2022 (primary text read in round 5) and McIntosh et al. 2009.

Round 5 found prior art. Guyomar's own model already says: "Gaps of an odd number of tubulin subunits will induce lattice-type transitions, while those of an even number will induce no changes." That is the parity law in other words. So our survivor is a re-derivation and a framing (the seam as a Möbius bundle), not a new prediction. The Figure 3A "two adjacent seams" flag is resolved: it is a whole-tube average over a 5→3 transition zone, and each segment by itself has an odd count.
05 · THE DECOY TEST

Would ten random famous things link up just as well?

Every object gets a yes/no on 8 questions. We score how alike a set is (mean Jaccard similarity) and compare the ten with 1,000 random 10-object sets drawn from a pool of 30 decoys. Turn questions off to see whether any one of them makes the ten special.

Only one question favours the ten: Q5, the twist. Half the ten have it, against 23% of the 30-object pool. That is the clue that led to the twist axis. On every other question the ten look like any famous list. All the scores are still my yes/no calls, so this test shows bias about as well as it controls for it.
06 · TWO AXES

Plot everything on twist × chaos

Across: the chaos fraction, meaning how much of the signal's power is not clean rotation (1 − Koopman line share). Up and down: the sign after one circuit. If the ten were one phenomenon, they would bunch together. Instead the twisted objects sit at zero chaos and the chaotic ones have no twist. Round 4 built the one object that should sit in the empty corner, a convecting fluid on a Möbius strip, and it came out periodic.

Hover or tap a dot for its numbers.

Tap a point.
07 · VERDICT

Holds, broke, and next

Version of the claimVerdictWhy
Weak: they share mathematicssupports (9 of 10)Fourier analysis touches nine of them. But it touches 8 of 10 decoys too, so it is a tool, not a phenomenon.
Medium: six share a twistsupports, for the sixDirac, Möbius, fermion wave function, microtubule seam, Fourier F² and Fibonacci det all give −1 after one circuit. Theorems, checked numerically.
Medium: all ten share itundercutsLorenz, Navier-Stokes and memristor have no circuit sign. The memristor has no theorem link to anything.
Strong: one phenomenonundercutsTwo axes that never couple. The ten score lower than a typical random famous set (25th percentile). Lorenz chaos does not survive in the fluid it was cut from.

Round 5 prediction scorecard

The next click down

  • The coupled corner. Find any system with chaos and a −1 circuit sign where the twist changes the chaos. Candidates: spinor fields with chaotic dynamics, and 3D flows in non-orientable domains. If one exists, something close to the strong claim comes back.
  • 3D turbulence. 2D convection stays tame up to high r. A 3D run needs far more compute than this box has; your home cluster (6900 XT / 4080 Super) could do a 64³ run.
  • A seam-count census. The parity law is consistent with Guyomar's model. A count of seams per lattice type across many cryo-ET tubes would test it properly. One flagged entry (EMD-15744, 13_3 with 0 seams next to an abnormal protofilament) came from a summary and needs checking at EMDB.
  • The video. X blocks fetching. Paste the list of what it shows and each item can be scored against these two axes.
08 · ROUND 6

The empty corner

Four experiments, one question: can a system that flips sign after one lap be chaotic in a way that depends on the flip?

Two were cheap enough to pilot straight away. The other two need a bigger machine or a real lab.

The corner. "Twisted" means a field comes back as its negative after one trip around (a Z2 holonomy, the Möbius strip's −1). "Chaotic" means nearby states separate exponentially. The corner holds systems that are both, where the twist shapes the chaos.

What PG-026 left behind. In round 4 the Möbius fluid stayed calm where the plain loop of the same length went chaotic. It behaved like a loop twice as long. In round 5 the full fluid at r = 150 was chaotic but never flipped. So every twisted system built so far either sat still or copied its double.

What counts as a resident. A twisted system whose chaos shows something neither control shows. The controls are the untwisted loop of the same length and the untwisted loop of twice the length. It must survive a finer grid, five seeds and a window of parameters; one lucky point does not count.

Ben's two doors. Ben named two places to look. "Spinning fluids with chaotic spin fields" became a quantum fluid whose spin carries a half twist (E3), with a classical spinning fluid as the fallback. "3D flow on non-orientable domains" became convection in a box glued like a Klein bottle (E4). E1 and E2 are cheap warm-ups that test the method.

The double-cover trap

Every twisted loop of length L is hiding inside a plain loop of length 2L. That one fact killed round 4, so every experiment here is built around it.

A field that flips after one lap is the same thing as a field on a loop twice as long that is forced to be its own negative halfway round:

u(x + L) = −u(x)   ⇔   u lives on a loop of length 2L and keeps only its odd modes

So the twisted system is a slice (an invariant subspace) of its untwisted double. Two things can happen to that slice inside the double:

  • The slice attracts. The double falls into the twisted state on its own. The twist only made the box longer. This is what round 4 saw: the Möbius fluid matched the 2L loop.
  • The slice repels. Inside the double, a tiny untwisted nudge grows and the state leaves the slice. Now the twisted chaos is something the double never shows you unaided. That is the only door to a resident.

The number that decides it is the transverse exponent λ⊥: the growth rate of an untwisted nudge to the twisted state, measured inside the double. This is the same quantity behind blowout bifurcations and on-off intermittency (Ott and Sommerer, 1994; cited from memory).

Every experiment runs the same three-way control:

RunWhat it isWhat a difference from MOB-L rules out
CYL-LPlain loop, same length"The twist did nothing"
MOB-LTwisted loop, length L(the system under test)
CYL-2LPlain loop, double length, started generic"The twist only doubled the length"
CYL-2L + nudgeThe double, started on the twisted slice, then nudgedGives λ⊥: does the double keep the twisted state or throw it out?

The runner and its six gates

A proposal works only if six things are true at once. Each is a gate with a number on it. The first gate that fails names the finding.

GateWhat would need to be trueThe checkIf it fails, the finding is
T1 Legal twistThe equations are unchanged by the flip, so a twisted version exists at allWrite the symmetry down; check the run keeps u(x+L) = −u(x) to round-offNo experiment: the system can't be twisted
T2 ChaosThe twisted run is chaotic by itself: λ1 > 0, at least 3 seed spreads above zeroTwin-trajectory Lyapunov, 5 seedsQuiet house: twisted and calm (round 4's Möbius fluid)
T3 Not just longerTwisted statistics differ from the generic double (CYL-2L) by more than seed spreadCompare λ1, correlation decay and one field statistic, against the generic double and against the double in the same winding sector (added after E2)Shadow of the double: the twist only doubled the box
T4 The double rejects itInside the double, an untwisted nudge grows: λ⊥ > 0Start the double on the twisted slice, add a 1×10−8 nudge, fit its growthSide room: the twisted state is one of the double's own attractors, picked by the start
T5 Odd carries itThe difference shows up in quantities that change sign under the flipSplit observables into odd and even; compare their decay ratesCoincidence of length: the effect lives in even quantities a longer box could fake
T6 It lastsGates T2 to T5 hold on a grid twice as fine and at 3 neighbouring parameter pointsRerun at 2× resolution and ± one step in the control parameterPassing visitor: a one-point fluke

All six true: Resident.

Read the table top down: each "yes" takes the run one gate further; each "no" stops it and names the finding.

What comes out of every run, resident or not:

  • A resident card (JSON): λ1 for CYL-L, MOB-L and CYL-2L with seed spread, λ⊥, odd and even decay rates, the gate that failed, and the verdict.
  • A plate: the three runs side by side as space-time pictures, in the notebook's style, so the difference shows before any number is read.
  • A PREREG hash locked before the run, as in rounds 1 to 5.

If a resident turns up, three more things come out: a short methods note (what the twist does that the double cannot), a page of its own on this site, and a protocol a real lab could run (E3 and E4 each name one).

E1 Lorenz, a corner already occupied

The butterfly is already a twisted chaotic system, so it is the first door to knock on. The flip (x, y, z) → (−x, −y, z) swaps the two wings. Fold the wings together and you get a one-lobe system (proto-Lorenz, Miranda and Stone 1993). Lorenz is its double cover (Letellier and Gilmore, 2000). Every wing switch is the −1 picked up going round. Both citations are from memory and were never re-opened.

The question. Does the wing label carry chaos of its own, or does the folded system decide every wing in advance?

Controls. The folded base (proto-Lorenz coordinates), the cover (Lorenz itself), and the cover with the flip broken by a small push ε added to dx/dt.

Needed for a resident

  • The wing sequence must hold information the base doesn't. Check: the entropy rate of the left/right sequence must exceed that of the stay/switch sequence. Equal means the base decides every wing (Shadow).
  • Odd quantities (x, y, xz, yz) must lose memory at a different rate from even ones (z, x², xy, y²). This is gate T5.
  • Sanity: λ1 must be the same in both coordinates. This is a theorem, so failing it means a bug.

What comes out. Three numbers: λ1 in both coordinates, the odd-to-even memory-loss ratio, and the two entropy rates. A plate: the butterfly with each lap inked by wing, beside its folded one-lobe base.

Locked prediction. Shadow. The bet: the twist changes how fast the system forgets and leaves alone how fast nearby paths separate.

E2 A ring of oscillators that must come back upside down

The complex Ginzburg–Landau equation is the cleanest chaotic field with a legal flip, so it calibrates the method. It describes any medium of coupled oscillators near onset: chemical waves, lasers, convection rolls.

∂A/∂t = A + (1 + i c1) ∂²A/∂x² − (1 + i c2) |A|² A,   with   A(x + L) = −A(x)

The twist. Turning every oscillator by half a turn (A → −A) leaves the equation unchanged, so the twisted ring is legal (gate T1). It forces the phase to turn by an odd number of half-turns per lap. A plain ring can sit at zero turn; the twisted one never can.

Why this regime. In phase turbulence the winding number is conserved and shapes the chaos: rings wound past a critical value νc decay by phase slips, and the allowed band shrinks to zero at the defect-turbulence line (Montagne, Hernández-García and San Miguel, PRL 77, 267, 1996; Montagne et al., PRE 56, 151, 1997). The pilot uses their parameters: c1 = 2.1, c2 = −0.75 and −0.83, with the defect line near c2 = −0.89.

Needed for a resident

  • The twisted ring must be chaotic (T2), and keep its half-turn winding without phase slips (T1).
  • The gap to the generic double (CYL-2L) must hold its size as the ring grows (T3). If it shrinks like 1/L, the twist is only a phase gradient of π/L spread thin.
  • The double must throw out the twisted state (T4, λ⊥ > 0).

What comes out. A table of λ1 for the three rings at L = 32, 64, 128, 256 with 5 seeds each, λ⊥, and the distance between amplitude histograms. A plate: three space-time strips of |A| side by side.

Locked prediction. Shadow, with the twist's effect fading like 1/L.

Where a resident could still hide here (E2b, still to run). Near the defect line νc shrinks toward zero. A plain ring can sit at ν = 0 and stay calm-ish. The twisted ring is forced to carry winding, which may push it over into defect turbulence first. That would be chaos the twist itself switched on. The fair control is then the double started at winding 1.

E3 Spinning fluids: a quantum fluid whose spin carries a half twist

This is the door where the double-cover trap may not close. Here the twist lives in the fluid itself, so there is no fixed double to hide in.

The fluid. A spin-1 sodium condensate in its polar phase. Its order parameter is a phase angle θ plus a spin axis d. The pair (θ + π, −d) is the same state as (θ, d). That identification is the Z2 twist, built into the material.

The resident candidate. A half-quantum vortex: the phase turns by half a turn and the spin axis turns by half a turn, together closing up. It is an "Alice string": carry a spin round one and it comes back flipped. Seo, Kwon, Kang and Shin imaged them in exactly this system (PRL 115, 015301, 2015).

Why the trap may not close. To make a half vortex single-valued you lift the field onto a double cover of the plane, cut open at every vortex core. Every time vortices move, pair up or annihilate, that cover changes shape. Round 4's fix ("compare with the 2L box") has nothing fixed to compare with.

The run. A 2D three-component Gross–Pitaevskii simulation, 256 × 256, stirred into a tangle of many half vortices. The "spin field" goes chaotic as they collide.

Controls.

RunWhat changesWhat it rules out
TWISTFull spin-1 polar fluid(the system under test)
COVERSame fluid with the spin-exchange term switched off, so the two spin components are just two separate fluids and a half vortex is an ordinary vortex in one of them"Any two-fluid tangle does this"
SCALARA one-component fluid stirred to the same energy"Any vortex tangle does this"

Needed for a resident

  • Half vortices must survive long enough to tangle before pairing into whole vortices.
  • The tangle must be chaotic: λ1 > 0 by twin runs (T2).
  • TWIST must differ from COVER: annihilation rate, energy spectrum or λ1 (T3).
  • The difference must sit in odd quantities: the spin axis d itself (odd) against its sign-blind tensor dd (even). This is the same split as E1 (T5).
  • It must hold at 512 × 512 and across a range of the magnetic field term q (T6).

What comes out. λ1, half-vortex count over time and pair-annihilation rate for all three runs, plus odd and even spin correlations. A plate: the spin axis as a colour wheel with half vortices as dots, TWIST beside COVER.

If a resident turns up, the room to stand in. A sodium spinor lab like Shin's at Seoul National University: quench to make many half vortices, image the spin components separately, count annihilations against q. The protocol would be written so they could run it as is.

Cost. A small version runs in about an hour (an estimate). The full scan needs a GPU.

Classical fallback. A fluid of spinning particles (an odd-viscosity chiral fluid) on a Möbius strip. Spin is handed, and handedness flips once round the strip. So a uniformly spinning flock cannot exist there: it must grow a seam where the spin passes through zero. That is both doors in one system.

E4 Flow on non-orientable domains

One hard fact first: no 3D box in ordinary space is non-orientable. Every region of ordinary space inherits its left and right hands. A twisted tube looks like a Möbius band, but as a solid it is orientable. So 3D flow on a non-orientable domain exists only in simulation. A 2D flow on a non-orientable surface can be built on a bench. E4 has one arm of each.

E4a Convection in a Klein box (simulation only)

Glue the ends of a convection box with a mirror: (x + L, y, z) is the point (x, −y, z), and the y-velocity flips sign. Gravity keeps pointing down, so heating from below stays legal (T1).

The twist bites the big roll. Large convection cells grow one domain-filling roll that wanders and sometimes reverses (Sugiyama et al., PRL 105, 034503, 2010, cited from memory). A roll turning in the y–z plane cannot survive the mirror gluing: its sense must reverse somewhere along x. So the twist forces a seam into any roll of that orientation, just like the heat seam on Plate III. The prediction: reversals stop being whole-cell flips and become seams sliding along x.

Needed. The plain box must show a big roll that reverses within the run time; without that there is nothing to change. The seam must move rather than pin to one place (T2). Reversal statistics must differ from the 2L double, with the double throwing out the mirrored state (T3, T4).

What comes out. Reversals per 1,000 free-fall times for the three boxes, the seam's position over time, λ1 and λ⊥. A plate: the mid-height temperature drawn on a Klein-bottle surface, with the seam in red.

Cost. Days per run at Rayleigh numbers near 107 (an estimate; a short timing run comes first).

E4b 2D turbulence on a Klein bottle (cheap, and buildable)

In a flat 2D flow, spin (vorticity) is handed. Glue a rectangle's ends with a mirror and a vortex carried once round comes back spinning the other way: ω(x + L, y) = −ω(x, −y).

Why it is the best bet. Forced 2D turbulence feeds its energy upward into one giant flow, a condensate. On some rectangles that condensate flips at random between a vortex pair and straight jets (Bouchet and Simonnet, PRL 102, 094504, 2009, cited from memory). The mirror gluing changes which giant flows are allowed. It permits one with twice the wavelength and forbids others. So the twist should reshape the random switching itself.

Needed. The plain torus must switch at the chosen aspect ratio and run length. The Klein run must still switch (T2). Its switching rate or its set of condensates must differ from the 2L double's (T3). Inside the double, a nudge off the mirrored slice must grow (T4).

What comes out. A switching-time histogram for all three domains, condensate shapes, and λ⊥. A plate: vorticity on the Klein rectangle, with the arrows that show the gluing.

The room to stand in. A soap film stretched on a Möbius wire frame is a real non-orientable 2D fluid. Soap films are already a standard bench for 2D turbulence. Comb it or blow on it, film it, and track whether big vortices come back reversed. This is the one experiment here that fits on a kitchen table.

Cost. A 2D spectral code at 256 × 256 is cheap, though rare switches need long runs: hours to a day.

Pilot results

No resident yet. Both cheap pilots landed where the bets said, one gate earlier than expected. Five of seven locked predictions held (PREREG-6, sha 0bd96df3).

Prediction (locked)ResultCall
P1a Lorenz λ1 same in both coordinates, within 2%0.903 vs 0.904hit
P1b Odd quantities forget at least 1.5× faster12.6× faster (1.16 vs 0.092 per unit time)hit
P1c The wing bit adds no entropy, within 2%0.967 vs 0.968 bits per lap (λ1 predicts 0.978)hit
P2a Twisted ring keeps its twist, no phase slips0 slips in 40 runs; twist exact to round-offhit
P2b Twisted ring chaotic by 3 seed spreads for L ≥ 64Only 2.0, 1.2 and 2.2 spreads at L = 64 and 128miss
P2c Gap to the plain double under 10% at L = 25620% and 23%miss
P2d The double throws out the twisted stateλ⊥ > 0 at every L ≥ 64hit

E1 verdict: Shadow of the base. The folded system decides every wing, so the flip adds no chaos. It does change memory: odd quantities forget 12.6× faster. But breaking the flip (ε up to 5) leaves that ratio at 8 to 14. So the fast forgetting comes from wing switching; the exact twist is not needed for it.

E2 verdict: Side room. The twisted ring is up to 10× calmer than both plain rings at L ≤ 128. A control added after the first two sizes (labelled exploratory in the notes) explains it: the 2L ring wound once is just as calm. The twist acts through the winding it forces, and the double can carry that winding too.

Largest Lyapunov exponent, five seeds per point, c1 = 2.1, measured over 1,500 time units:

c2 = −0.83L = 32L = 64L = 128L = 256
Plain ring, length L0.0125 ± 0.00070.0175 ± 0.00210.0202 ± 0.00240.0189 ± 0.0008
Twisted ring, length L0.0006 ± 0.00070.0016 ± 0.00080.0106 ± 0.00480.0175 ± 0.0018
Plain ring, length 2L0.0168 ± 0.00290.0175 ± 0.00130.0209 ± 0.00140.0218 ± 0.0019
2L ring wound once0.0148 ± 0.00470.0038 ± 0.00190.0073 ± 0.00280.0186 ± 0.0008
Nudge growth inside the double0.0097 ± 0.00140.0042 ± 0.00150.0105 ± 0.00480.0180 ± 0.0022
c2 = −0.75L = 32L = 64L = 128L = 256
Plain ring, length L-0.0011 ± 0.00080.0086 ± 0.00260.0120 ± 0.00100.0130 ± 0.0020
Twisted ring, length L-0.0004 ± 0.00070.0021 ± 0.00170.0047 ± 0.00100.0094 ± 0.0013
Plain ring, length 2L0.0102 ± 0.00080.0128 ± 0.00150.0120 ± 0.00060.0122 ± 0.0017
2L ring wound once0.0000 ± 0.00020.0020 ± 0.00110.0057 ± 0.00120.0117 ± 0.0011
Nudge growth inside the double-0.0002 ± 0.00200.0022 ± 0.00090.0045 ± 0.00110.0097 ± 0.0016

The twisted ring tracks the wound double from L = 64 up, and both rejoin the plain rings by L = 256. One point breaks the pattern: at L = 32, c2 = −0.83 the twisted ring is calm (λ1 = 0.0006 ± 0.0007) while the wound double is chaotic (0.0148 ± 0.0047). One point is a lead and no more. A fine scan of small rings is the next run.

Lesson for the runner. Gate T3 must compare against the double in the same winding sector; a generic double is too easy to beat. Without that, E2 would have passed T3 at L = 256 on a 20% gap that winding alone explains.

Notes on the run. Before any result, a time-stepper bug was found and fixed (a half-circle contour, valid only for real operators). That first launch was discarded.

Ranking: where to knock next

Knock first on the small twisted rings, because that is the only lead on the board and it costs an hour. Then the Klein-bottle turbulence, which is the best cheap shot at a real resident.

RankExperimentWhy thereCostWhere it runs
1E2 rescan: twisted rings L = 24 to 48, c2 = −0.80 to −0.88, plus the wound doubleChases the one point where the twist calmed a ring that winding alone did notAbout an hourA laptop
2E4b 2D turbulence on a Klein bottleThe twist changes which giant flows are allowed, so it should reshape their random switching; a soap film makes it buildableHours to a dayA laptop
3E3 half-quantum vortex tangleThe only door where the double cover changes shape as the fluid moves, so the trap may not close; a real lab existsDaysA GPU
4E4a convection in a Klein boxBen's second door exactly; simulation only, and slowDays per runA bigger machine
closedE1 LorenzShadow of the base: the flip adds no chaosDoneDone

What would change this order. If the E2 rescan shows a window of twisted calm (T6), it jumps to a full card. If E4b's plain torus will not switch at a reachable run length, E3 moves up.

PG-026 · rounds 1 to 4 on 1 Nov 2026, round 5 on 3 Nov 2026, round 6 on 6 Nov 2026 · every round had its predictions locked by hash before it ran (PREREG 2756a77c, PREREG-2 f43547c5, PREREG-4 3f32963e, PREREG-5 , PREREG-6 0bd96df3). Standing: mixed. The card sits on the Proving Ground board.